Ross Perot changed American politics by disrupting Republicans and Democrats alike. We can learn from that.

Former Presidential candidate Ross Perot stands in front of a historic USS Constitution "Old Ironsides" American flag in his offices in Plano, Texas on Sept. 27, 2012. Perot died July 9.(Photo: Michael Mulvey/for USA TODAY)

Ross Perot may not have won the election, but he introduced healthy competition, however briefly, into an otherwise duopolistic industry and in so doing, won tangible results for the country. His role in the American body politic should not be forgotten.

Charts and graphs about debt and deficits were emblematic of Perot’s failed attempt at the presidency in the early 1990s. His sometimes-quirky commitment to fiscal responsibility was admirable. And yet, his campaign is most often remembered for its supposed “spoiler” effect. (Many believe that Perot cost President George H.W. Bush a second term though, in fact, statistician Nate Silver established that Perot’s votes drew equally from both parties and therefore didn’t affect the ultimate election result).

Here’s what we should remember instead:

Without Perot’s candidacy, we would never talk about the balanced budgets and surpluses of the Bill Clinton era — because they wouldn’t exist.

How does a loser deliver results? The answer lies in understanding competition. Healthy competition in every industry leads to results: competitors working to best serve the needs of customers. Unhealthy competition does the opposite.

Politics has become an enormous industry and a duopoly. In any other industry this large, with such overwhelming customer dissatisfaction and only two players, entrepreneurs would create new competitors responding to what customers want.

The absence of new competitors outside the duopoly is a mark of unhealthy competition. It happens in part because, unlike any other industry, there is no independent regulation in the politics industry. The actors in the industry are the ones who themselves make the rules of the game, and the two parties work very well together in one particular way — to rig the rules of the game to protect themselves jointly from new competition. In other words, Washington isn’t broken — it’s fixed.

This looks like a promising anti-trust case. But ever so conveniently, anti-trust regulation doesn’t apply to the politics industry.

Troublingly, there’s no accountability for any of this. There’s no accountability because the customer only has two choices. To win in the political duopoly, all that’s required is convincing the voter that you’re better than their only other option. What’s not required is delivering results. Because no matter how disappointed any voter is, they still likely prefer what “their side” says they’re for than what the one “other side” says they’re for. Therefore, instead of healthy competition delivering results that serve the public interest, we get unhealthy competition, gridlock and dysfunctional drama.

We may be used to it. We may even think it’s normal. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Perot is a great example of the benefits of competition. Perot’s 19% of the electorate dramatically elevated the issue of fiscal responsibility in 1992 by demonstrating that a sizable number of people were willing to stake their votes to it.

Elected officials knew that 19% was up for grabs in subsequent cycles. This competitive pressure meant neither the Democrats nor the Republicans — neither President Bill Clinton nor later Speaker Newt Gingrich — were about to ignore that 19% while governing and so delivered balanced budgets and erased the federal deficit. Of course, the booming economy and dot-com bubble created higher revenues, but absent Perot’s competitive threat, it’s most likely Washington would have squandered those revenues.

It’s a lot easier to pass the bill to the next generation. Just look at what’s happened since.

The duopoly learned their proverbial lesson in 1992 when they allowed Perot to participate in the presidential debates. They excluded Perot in 1996, and since then, the duopoly-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates established rules for participation specifically designed to exclude potential third party and independent challengers.

The debate access rules are only one of a myriad of ways the duopoly protects the current failing system from challenge to its hegemony.

In Wisconsin, business leaders understand the value of healthy competition for every industry — including politics. That’s why a group of business leaders from across the political spectrum has formed the new organization, Democracy Found, dedicated to changing election rules to restore healthy political competition in the public interest. With healthy competition, Washington will be incented to address our greatest challenges. Without it, we will continue to get what we’ve been getting — no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.

Katherine Gehl is co-founder and co-chair of Democracy Found; Sara Eskrich is the executive director (www.democracyfound.org).